|
|
| & etc |
FEEDBACK
(C)1998-2012
All Rights Reserved.
Site last updated
13 January, 2012
|
|
|
| James Buchanan and Slavery
by James Buchanan
FROM THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF JAMES BUCHANAN
Inaugural Address
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1857
We have recently passed through a Presidential contest in which the passions of our fellow-citizens were excited to the highest degree by questions of deep and vital importance; but when the people proclaimed their will the tempest at once subsided and all was calm.
The voice of the majority, speaking in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, was heard, and instant submission followed. Our own country could alone have exhibited so grand and striking a spectacle of the capacity of man for self-government.
What a happy conception, then, was it for Congress to apply this simple rule, that the will of the majority shall govern, to the settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the Territories. Congress is neither "to legislate slavery into any Territory or State nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."
As a natural consequence, Congress has also prescribed that when the Territory of Kansas shall be admitted as a State it "shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission." A difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the point of time when the people of a Territory shall decide this question for themselves.
This is, happily, a matter of but little practical importance. Besides, it is a judicial question, which legitimately belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be, though it has ever been my individual opinion that under the Nebraska-Kansas act the appropriate period will be when the number of actual residents in the Territory shall justify the formation of a constitution with a view to its admission as a State into the Union. But be this as it may, it is the imperative and indispensable duty of the Government of the United States to secure to every resident inhabitant the free and independent expression of his opinion by his vote. This sacred right of each individual must be preserved. That being accomplished, nothing can be fairer than to leave the people of a Territory free from all foreign interference to decide their own destiny for themselves, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.
The whole Territorial question being thus settled upon the principle of popular sovereignty--a principle as ancient as free government itself--everything of a practical nature has been decided. No other question remains for adjustment, because all agree that under the Constitution slavery in the States is beyond the reach of any human power except that of the respective States themselves wherein it exists. May we not, then, hope that the long agitation on this subject is approaching its end, and that the geographical parties to which it has given birth, so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, will speedily become extinct? Most happy will it be for the country when the public mind shall be diverted from this question to others of more pressing and practical importance. Throughout the whole progress of this agitation, which has scarcely known any intermission for more than twenty years, whilst it has been productive of no positive good to any human being it has been the prolific source of great evils to the master, to the slave, and to the whole country. It has alienated and estranged the people of the sister States from each other, and has even seriously endangered the very existence of the Union. Nor has the danger yet entirely ceased. Under our system there is a remedy for all mere political evils in the sound sense and sober judgment of the people. Time is a great corrective. Political subjects which but a few years ago excited and exasperated the public mind have passed away and are now nearly forgotten. But this question of domestic slavery is of far graver importance than any mere political question, because should the agitation continue it may eventually endanger the personal safety of a large portion of our countrymen where the institution exists. In that event no form of government, however admirable in itself and however productive of material benefits, can compensate for the loss of peace and domestic security around the family altar. Let every Union-loving man, therefore, exert his best influence to suppress this agitation, which since the recent legislation of Congress is without any legitimate object.
State of the Union Address
December 8, 1857
It is unnecessary to state in detail the alarming condition of the
Territory of Kansas at the time of my inauguration. The opposing parties
then stood in hostile array against each other, and any accident might have
relighted the flames of civil war. Besides, at this critical moment Kansas
was left without a governor by the resignation of Governor Geary.
On the 19th of February previous the Territorial legislature had passed a
law providing for the election of delegates on the third Monday of June to
a convention to meet on the first Monday of September for the purpose of
framing a constitution preparatory to admission into the Union. This law
was in the main fair and just, and it is to be regretted that all the
qualified electors had not registered themselves and voted under its
provisions.
At the time of the election for delegates an extensive organization existed
in the Territory whose avowed object it was, if need be, to put down the
lawful government by force and to establish a government of their own under
the so-called Topeka constitution. The persons attached to this
revolutionary organization abstained from taking any part in the election.
The act of the Territorial legislature had omitted to provide for
submitting to the people the constitution which might be framed by the
convention, and in the excited state of public feeling throughout Kansas an
apprehension extensively prevailed that a design existed to force upon them
a constitution in relation to slavery against their will. In this emergency
it became my duty, as it was my unquestionable right, having in view the
union of all good citizens in support of the Territorial laws, to express
an opinion on the true construction of the provisions concerning slavery
contained in the organic act of Congress of the 30th May, 1854. Congress
declared it to be "the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate
slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to
leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way." Under it Kansas, "when admitted as a
State," was to "be received into the Union with or without slavery, as
their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."
Did Congress mean by this language that the delegates elected to frame a
constitution should have authority finally to decide the question of
slavery, or did they intend by leaving it to the people that the people of
Kansas themselves should decide this question by a direct vote? On this
subject I confess I had never entertained a serious doubt, and therefore in
my instructions to Governor Walker of the 28th March last I merely said
that when "a constitution shall be submitted to the people of the Territory
they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting for or
against that instrument, and the fair expression of the popular will must
not be interrupted by fraud or violence."
In expressing this opinion it was far from my intention to interfere with
the decision of the people of Kansas, either for or against slavery. From
this I have always carefully abstained. Intrusted with the duty of taking
"care that the laws be faithfully executed," my only desire was that the
people of Kansas should furnish to Congress the evidence required by the
organic act, whether for or against slavery, and in this manner smooth
their passage into the Union. In emerging from the condition of Territorial
dependence into that of a sovereign State it was their duty, in my opinion,
to make known their will by the votes of the majority on the direct
question whether this important domestic institution should or should not
continue to exist. Indeed, this was the only possible mode in which their
will could be authentically ascertained.
The election of delegates to a convention must necessarily take place in
separate districts. From this cause it may readily happen, as has often
been the case, that a majority of the people of a State or Territory are on
one side of a question, whilst a majority of the representatives from the
several districts into which it is divided may be upon the other side. This
arises front the fact that in some districts delegates may be elected by
small majorities, whilst in others those of different sentiments may
receive majorities sufficiently great not only to overcome the votes given
for the former, but to leave a large majority of the whole people in direct
opposition to a majority of the delegates. Besides, our history proves that
influences may be brought to bear on the representative sufficiently
powerful to induce him to disregard the will of his constituents. The truth
is that no other authentic and satisfactory mode exists of ascertaining the
will of a majority of the people of any State or Territory on an important
and exciting question like that of slavery in Kansas except by leaving it
to a direct vote. How wise, then, was it for Congress to pass over all
subordinate and intermediate agencies and proceed directly to the source of
all legitimate power under our institutions!
How vain would any other principle prove in practice! This may be
illustrated by the case of Kansas. Should she be admitted into the Union
with a constitution either maintaining or abolishing slavery against the
sentiment of the people, this could have no other effect than to continue
and to exasperate the existing agitation during the brief period required
to make the constitution conform to the irresistible will of the majority.
The friends and supporters of the Nebraska and Kansas act, when struggling
on a recent occasion to sustain its wise provisions before the great
tribunal of the American people, never differed about its true meaning on
this subject. Everywhere throughout the Union they publicly pledged their
faith and their honor that they would cheerfully submit the question of
slavery to the decision of the bona fide people of Kansas, without any
restriction or qualification whatever. All were cordially united upon the
great doctrine of popular sovereignty, which is the vital principle of our
free institutions. Had it then been insinuated from any quarter that it
would be a sufficient compliance with the requisitions of the organic law
for the members of a convention thereafter to be elected to withhold the
question of slavery from the people and to substitute their own will for
that of a legally ascertained majority of all their constituents, this
would have been instantly rejected. Everywhere they remained true to the
resolution adopted on a celebrated occasion recognizing "the right of the
people of all the Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting
through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual
residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to
form a constitution with or without slavery and be admitted into the Union
upon terms of perfect equality with the other States."
The convention to frame a constitution for Kansas met on the first Monday
of September last. They were called together by virtue of an act of the
Territorial legislature, whose lawful existence had been recognized by
Congress in different forms and by different enactments. A large proportion
of the citizens of Kansas did not think proper to register their names and
to vote at the election for delegates; but an opportunity to do this having
been fairly afforded, their refusal to avail themselves of their right
could in no manner affect the legality of the convention. This convention
proceeded to frame a constitution for Kansas, and finally adjourned on the
7th day of November. But little difficulty occurred in the convention
except on the subject of slavery. The truth is that the general provisions
of our recent State constitutions are so similar and, I may add, so
excellent that the difference between them is not essential. Under the
earlier practice of the Government no constitution framed by the convention
of a Territory preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State had
been submitted to the people. I trust, however, the example set by the last
Congress, requiring that the constitution of Minnesota "should be subject
to the approval and ratification of the people of the proposed State," may
be followed on future occasions. I took it for granted that the convention
of Kansas would act in accordance with this example, rounded, as it is, on
correct principles, and hence my instructions to Governor Walker in favor
of submitting the constitution to the people were expressed in general and
unqualified terms.
In the Kansas-Nebraska act, however, this requirement, as applicable to the
whole constitution, had not been inserted, and the convention were not
bound by its terms to submit any other portion of the instrument to an
election except that which relates to the "domestic institution" of
slavery. This will be rendered clear by a simple reference to its language.
It was "not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to
exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." According
to the plain construction of the sentence, the words "domestic
institutions" have a direct, as they have an appropriate, reference to
slavery. "Domestic institutions" are limited to the family. The relation
between master and slave and a few others are "domestic institutions," and
are entirely distinct from institutions of a political character. Besides,
there was no question then before Congress, nor, indeed, has there since
been any serious question before the people of Kansas or the country,
except that which relates to the "domestic institution" of slavery. The
convention, after an angry and excited debate, finally determined, by a
majority of only two, to submit the question of slavery to the people,
though at the last forty-three of the fifty delegates present affixed their
signatures to the constitution.
A large majority of the convention were in favor of establishing slavery in
Kansas. They accordingly inserted an article in the constitution for this
purpose similar in form to those which had been adopted by other
Territorial conventions. In the schedule, however, providing for the
transition from a Territorial to a State government the question has been
fairly and explicitly referred to the people whether they will have a
constitution "with or without slavery." It declares that before the
constitution adopted by the convention "shall be sent to Congress for
admission into the Union as a State" an election shall be held to decide
this question, at which all the white male inhabitants of the Territory
above the age of 21 are entitled to vote. They are to vote by ballot, and
"the ballots cast at said election shall be indorsed 'constitution with
slavery' and 'constitution with no slavery.'" If there be a majority in
favor of the "constitution with slavery," then it is to be transmitted to
Congress by the president of the convention in its original form; if, on
the contrary, there shall be a majority in favor of the "constitution with
no slavery," "then the article providing for slavery shall be stricken from
the constitution by the president of this convention;" and it is expressly
declared that "no slavery shall exist in the State of Kansas, except that
the right of property in slaves now in the Territory shall in no manner be
interfered with;" and in that event it is made his duty to have the
constitution thus ratified transmitted to the Congress of the United States
for the admission of the State into the Union.
At this election every citizen will have an opportunity of expressing his
opinion by his vote "whether Kansas shall be received into the Union with
or without slavery," and thus this exciting question may be peacefully
settled in the very mode required by the organic law. The election will be
held under legitimate authority, and if any portion of the inhabitants
shall refuse to vote, a fair opportunity to do so having been presented,
this will be their own voluntary act and they alone will be responsible for
the consequences.
Whether Kansas shall be a free or a slave State must eventually, under some
authority, be decided by an election; and the question can never be more
clearly or distinctly presented to the people than it is at the present
moment. Should this opportunity be rejected she may be involved for years
in domestic discord, and possibly in civil war, before she can again make
up the issue now so fortunately tendered and again reach the point she has
already attained.
Kansas has for some years occupied too much of the public attention. It is
high time this should be directed to far more important objects. When once
admitted into the Union, whether with or without slavery, the excitement
beyond her own limits will speedily pass away, and she will then for the
first time be left, as she ought to have been long since, to manage her own
affairs in her own way. If her constitution on the subject of slavery or on
any other subject be displeasing to a majority of the people, no human
power can prevent them from changing it within a brief period. Under these
circumstances it may well be questioned whether the peace and quiet of the
whole country are not of greater importance than the mere temporary triumph
of either of the political parties in Kansas.
Should the constitution without slavery be adopted by the votes of the
majority, the rights of property in slaves now in the Territory are
reserved. The number of these is very small, but if it were greater the
provision would be equally just and reasonable. The slaves were brought
into the Territory under the Constitution of the United States and are now
the property of their masters. This point has at length been finally
decided by the highest judicial tribunal of the country, and this upon the
plain principle that when a confederacy of sovereign States acquire a new
territory at their joint expense both equality and justice demand that the
citizens of one and all of them shall have the right to take into it
whatsoever is recognized as property by the common Constitution. To have
summarily confiscated the property in slaves already in the Territory would
have been an act of gross injustice and contrary to the practice of the
older States of the Union which have abolished slavery.
State of the Union Address
December 6, 1858
When we compare the condition of the country at the present day with what
it was one year ago at the meeting of Congress, we have much reason for
gratitude to that Almighty Providence which has never failed to interpose
for our relief at the most critical periods of our history. One year ago
the sectional strife between the North and the South on the dangerous
subject of slavery had again become so intense as to threaten the peace and
perpetuity of the Confederacy. The application for the admission of Kansas
as a State into the Union fostered this unhappy agitation and brought the
whole subject once more before Congress. It was the desire of every patriot
that such measures of legislation might be adopted as would remove the
excitement from the States and confine it to the Territory where it
legitimately belonged. Much has been done, I am happy to say, toward the
accomplishment of this object during the last session of Congress. The
Supreme Court of the United States had previously decided that all American
citizens have an equal right to take into the Territories whatever is held
as property under the laws of any of the States, and to hold such property
there under the guardianship of the Federal Constitution so long as the
Territorial condition shall remain.
This is now a well-established position, and the proceedings of the last
session were alone wanting to give it practical effect. The principle has
been recognized in some form or other by an almost unanimous vote of both
Houses of Congress that a Territory has a right to come into the Union
either as a free or a slave State, according to the will of a majority of
its people. The just equality of all the States has thus been vindicated
and a fruitful source of dangerous dissension among them has been removed.
Whilst such has been the beneficial tendency of your legislative
proceedings outside of Kansas, their influence has nowhere been so happy as
within that Territory itself. Left to manage and control its own affairs in
its own way, without the pressure of external influence, the revolutionary
Topeka organization and all resistance to the Territorial government
established by Congress have been finally abandoned. As a natural
consequence that fine Territory now appears to be tranquil and prosperous
and is attracting increasing thousands of immigrants to make it their happy
home.
The past unfortunate experience of Kansas has enforced the lesson, so often
already taught, that resistance to lawful authority under our form of
government can not fail in the end to prove disastrous to its authors. Had
the people of the Territory yielded obedience to the laws enacted by their
legislature, it would at the present moment have contained a large
additional population of industrious and enterprising citizens, who have
been deterred from entering its borders by the existence of civil strife
and organized rebellion.
It was the resistance to rightful authority and the persevering attempts to
establish a revolutionary government under the Topeka constitution which
caused the people of Kansas to commit the grave error of refusing to vote
for delegates to the convention to frame a constitution under a law not
denied to be fair and just in its provisions. This refusal to vote has been
the prolific source of all the evils which have followed, In their
hostility to the Territorial government they disregarded the principle,
absolutely essential to the working of our form of government, that a
majority of those who vote, not the majority who may remain at home, from
whatever cause, must decide the result of an election. For this reason,
seeking to take advantage of their own error, they denied the authority of
the convention thus elected to frame a constitution.
The convention, notwithstanding, proceeded to adopt a constitution
unexceptionable in its general features, and providing for the submission
of the slavery question to a vote of the people, which, in my opinion, they
were bound to do under the Kansas and Nebraska act. This was the
all-important question which had alone convulsed the Territory; and yet the
opponents of the lawful government, persisting in their first error,
refrained from exercising their right to vote, and preferred that slavery
should continue rather than surrender their revolutionary Topeka
organization.
A wiser and better spirit seemed to prevail before the first Monday of
January last, when an election was held under the constitution. A majority
of the people then voted for a governor and other State officers, for a
Member of Congress and members of the State legislature. This election was
warmly contested by the two political parties in Kansas, and a greater vote
was polled than at any previous election. A large majority of the members
of the legislature elect belonged to that party which had previously
refused to vote. The antislavery party were thus placed in the ascendant,
and the political power of the State was in their own hands. Had Congress
admitted Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, the
legislature might at its very first session have submitted the question to
a vote of the people whether they would or would not have a convention to
amend their constitution, either on the slavery or any other question, and
have adopted all necessary means for giving speedy effect to the will of
the majority. Thus the Kansas question would have been immediately and
finally settled.
Under these circumstances I submitted to Congress the constitution thus
framed, with all the officers already elected necessary to put the State
government into operation, accompanied by a strong recommendation in favor
of the admission of Kansas as a State. In the course of my long public life
I have never performed any official act which in the retrospect has
afforded me more heartfelt satisfaction. Its admission could have inflicted
no possible injury on any human being, whilst it would within a brief
period have restored peace to Kansas and harmony to the Union. In that
event the slavery question would ere this have been finally settled
according to the legally expressed will of a majority of the voters, and
popular sovereignty would thus have been vindicated in a constitutional
manner.
With my deep convictions of duty I could have pursued no other course. It
is true that as an individual I had expressed an opinion, both before and
during the session of the convention, in favor of submitting the remaining
clauses of the constitution, as well as that concerning slavery, to the
people. But, acting in an official character, neither myself nor any human
authority had the power to rejudge the proceedings of the convention and
declare the constitution which it had framed to be a nullity. To have done
this would have been a violation of the Kansas and Nebraska act, which left
the people of the Territory "perfectly free to form and regulate their
domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of
the United States." It would equally have violated the great principle of
popular sovereignty, at the foundation of our institutions, to deprive the
people of the power, if they thought proper to exercise it, of confiding to
delegates elected by themselves the trust of framing a constitution without
requiring them to subject their constituents to the trouble, expense, and
delay of a second election. It would have been in opposition to many
precedents in our history, commencing in the very best age of the Republic,
of the admission of Territories as States into the Union without a previous
vote of the people approving their constitution.
It is to be lamented that a question so insignificant when viewed in its
practical effects on the people of Kansas, whether decided one way or the
other, should have kindled such a flame of excitement throughout the
country. This reflection may prove to be a lesson of wisdom and of warning
for our future guidance. Practically considered, the question is simply
whether the people of that Territory should first come into the Union and
then change any provision in their constitution not agreeable to
themselves, or accomplish the very same object by remaining out of the
Union and framing another constitution in accordance with their will. In
either case the result would be precisely the same. The only difference, in
point of fact, is that the object would have been much sooner attained and
the pacification of Kansas more speedily effected had it been admitted as a
State during the last session of Congress.
My recommendation, however, for the immediate admission of Kansas failed to
meet the approbation of Congress. They deemed it wiser to adopt a different
measure for the settlement of the question. For my own part, I should have
been willing to yield my assent to almost any constitutional measure to
accomplish this object. I therefore cordially acquiesced in what has been
called the English compromise and approved the "act for the admission of
the State of Kansas into the Union" upon the terms therein prescribed.
Under the ordinance which accompanied the Lecompton constitution the people
of Kansas had claimed double the quantity of public lands for the support
of common schools which had ever been previously granted to any State upon
entering the Union, and also the alternate sections of land for 12 miles on
each side of two railroads proposed to be constructed from the northern to
the southern boundary and from the eastern to the western boundary of the
State. Congress, deeming these claims unreasonable, provided by the act of
May 4, 1858, to which I have just referred, for the admission of the State
on an equal footing with the original States, but "upon the fundamental
condition precedent" that a majority of the people thereof, at an election
to be held for that purpose, should, in place of the very large grants of
public lands which they had demanded under the ordinance, accept such
grants as had been made to Minnesota and other new States. Under this act,
should a majority reject the proposition offered them, "it shall be deemed
and held that the people of Kansas do not desire admission into the Union
with said constitution under the conditions set forth in said proposition."
In that event the act authorizes the people of the Territory to elect
delegates to form a constitution and State government for themselves
"whenever, and not before, it is ascertained by a census, duly and legally
taken, that the population of said Territory equals or exceeds the ratio of
representation required for a member of the House of Representatives of the
Congress of the United States." The delegates thus assembled "shall first
determine by a vote whether it is the wish of the people of the proposed
State to be admitted into the Union at that time, and, if so, shall proceed
to form a constitution and take all necessary steps for the establishment
of a State government in conformity with the Federal Constitution." After
this constitution shall have been formed, Congress, carrying out the
principles of popular sovereignty and nonintervention, have left "the mode
and manner of its approval or ratification by the people of the proposed
State" to be "prescribed by law," and they "shall then be admitted into the
Union as a State under such constitution, thus fairly and legally made,
with or without slavery, as said constitution may prescribe."
An election was held throughout Kansas, in pursuance of the provisions of
this act, on the 2d day of August last, and it resulted in the rejection by
a large majority of the proposition submitted to the people by Congress.
This being the case, they are now authorized to form another constitution,
preparatory to admission into the Union, but not until their number, as
ascertained by a census, shall equal or exceed the ratio required to elect
a member to the House of Representatives.
It is not probable, in the present state of the case, that a third
constitution can be lawfully framed and presented to Congress by Kansas
before its population shall have reached the designated number. Nor is it
to be presumed that after their sad experience in resisting the Territorial
laws they will attempt to adopt a constitution in express violation of the
provisions of an act of Congress. During the session of 1856 much of the
time of Congress was occupied on the question of admitting Kansas under the
Topeka constitution. Again, nearly the whole of the last session was
devoted to the question of its admission under the Lecompton constitution.
Surely it is not unreasonable to require the people of Kansas to wait
before making a third attempt until the number of their inhabitants shall
amount to 93,420. During this brief period the harmony of the States as
well as the great business interests of the country demand that the people
of the Union shall not for a third time be convulsed by another agitation
on the Kansas question. By waiting for a short time and acting in obedience
to law Kansas will glide into the Union without the slightest impediment.
This excellent provision, which Congress have applied to Kansas, ought to
be extended and rendered applicable to all Territories which may hereafter
seek admission into the Union.
Whilst Congress possess the undoubted power of admitting a new State into
the Union, however small may be the number of its inhabitants, yet this
power ought not, in my opinion, to be exercised before the population shall
amount to the ratio required by the act for the admission of Kansas. Had
this been previously the rule, the country would have escaped all the evils
and misfortunes to which it has been exposed by the Kansas question.
Of course it would be unjust to give this rule a retrospective application,
and exclude a State which, acting upon the past practice of the Government,
has already formed its constitution, elected its legislature and other
officers, and is now prepared to enter the Union. The rule ought to be
adopted, whether we consider its bearing on the people of the Territories
or upon the people of the existing States. Many of the serious dissentions
which have prevailed in Congress and throughout the country would have been
avoided had this rule been established at an earlier period of the
Government.
Immediately upon the formation of a new Territory people from different
States and from foreign countries rush into it for the laudable purpose of
improving their condition. Their first duty to themselves is to open and
cultivate farms, to construct roads, to establish schools, to erect places
of religious worship, and to devote their energies generally to reclaim the
wilderness and to lay the foundations of a flourishing and prosperous
commonwealth. If in this incipient condition, with a population of a few
thousand, they should prematurely enter the Union, they are oppressed by
the burden of State taxation, and the means necessary for the improvement
of the Territory and the advancement of their own interests are thus
diverted to very different purposes.
The Federal Government has ever been a liberal parent to the Territories
and a generous contributor to the useful enterprises of the early settlers.
It has paid the expenses of their governments and legislative assemblies
out of the common Treasury, and thus relieved them from a heavy charge.
Under these circumstances nothing can be better calculated to retard their
material progress than to divert them from their useful employments by
prematurely exciting angry political contests among themselves for the
benefit of aspiring leaders. It is surely no hardship for embryo governors,
Senators, and Members of Congress to wait until the number of inhabitants
shall equal those of a single Congressional district. They surely ought not
to be permitted to rush into the Union with a population less than one-half
of several of the large counties in the interior of some of the States.
This was the condition of Kansas when it made application to be admitted
under the Topeka constitution. Besides, it requires some time to render the
mass of a population collected in a new Territory at all homogeneous and to
unite them on anything like a fixed policy. Establish the rule, and all
will look forward to it and govern themselves accordingly. But justice to
the people of the several States requires that this rule should be
established by Congress. Each State is entitled to two Senators and at
least one Representative in Congress. Should the people of the States fail
to elect a Vice-President, the power devolves upon the Senate to select
this officer from the two highest candidates on the list. In case of the
death of the President, the Vice-President thus elected by the Senate
becomes President of the United States. On all questions of legislation the
Senators from the smallest States of the Union have an equal vote with
those from the largest. The same may be said in regard to the ratification
of treaties and of Executive appointments. All this has worked admirably in
practice, whilst it conforms in principle with the character of a
Government instituted by sovereign States. I presume no American citizen
would desire the slightest change in the arrangement. Still, is it not
unjust and unequal to the existing States to invest some 40,000 or 50,000
people collected in a Territory with the attributes of sovereignty and
place them on an equal footing with Virginia and New York in the Senate of
the United States?
...
On the 21st of August last Lieutenant J. N. Maffit, of the United States
brig Dolphin, captured the slaver Echo (formerly the Putnam, of New
Orleans) near Kay Verde, on the coast of Cuba, with more than 300 African
negroes on board. The prize, under the command of Lieutenant Bradford, of
the United States Navy, arrived at Charleston on the 27th August, when the
negroes, 306 in number, were delivered into the custody of the United
States marshal for the district of South Carolina. They were first placed
in Castle Pinckney, and afterwards in Fort Sumter, for safe-keeping, and
were detained there until the 19th September, when the survivors, 271 in
number, were delivered on board the United States steamer Niagara to be
transported to the coast of Africa under the charge of the agent of the
United States, pursuant to the provisions of the act of the 3d March, 1819,
"in addition to the acts prohibiting the slave trade." Under the second
section of this act the President is "authorized to make such regulations
and arrangements as he may deem expedient for the safe-keeping, support,
and removal beyond the limits of the United States of all such negroes,
mulattoes, or persons of color" captured by vessels of the United States as
may be delivered to the marshal of the district into which they are
brought, "and to appoint a proper person or persons residing upon the coast
of Africa as agent or agents for receiving the negroes, mulattoes, or
persons of color delivered from on board vessels seized in the prosecution
of the slave trade by commanders of United States armed vessels."
A doubt immediately arose as to the true construction of this act. It is
quite clear from its terms that the President was authorized to provide
"for the safe-keeping, support, and removal" of these negroes up till the
time of their delivery to the agent on the coast of Africa, but no express
provision was made for their protection and support after they had reached
the place of their destination. Still, an agent was to be pointed to
receive them in Africa, and it could not have been supposed that Congress
intended he should desert them at the moment they were received and turn
them loose on that inhospitable coast to perish for want of food or to
become again the victims of the slave trade. Had this been the intention of
Congress, the employment of an agent to receive them, who is required to
reside on the coast, was unnecessary, and they might have been landed by
our vessels anywhere in Africa and left exposed to the sufferings and the
fate which would certainly await them.
Mr. Monroe, in his special message of December 17, 1819, at the first
session after the act was passed, announced to Congress what in his opinion
was its true construction. He believed it to be his duty under it to follow
these unfortunates into Africa and make provision for them there until they
should be able to provide for themselves. In communicating this
interpretation of the act to Congress he stated that some doubt had been
entertained as to its true intent and meaning, and he submitted the
question to them so that they might, "should it be deemed advisable, amend
the same before further proceedings are had under it." Nothing was done by
Congress to explain the act, and Mr. Monroe proceeded to carry it into
execution according to his own interpretation. This, then, became the
practical construction. When the Africans from on board the Echo were
delivered to the marshal at Charleston, it became my duty to consider what
disposition ought to be made of them under the law. For many reasons it was
expedient to remove them from that locality as speedily as possible.
Although the conduct of the authorities and citizens of Charleston in
giving countenance to the execution of the law was just what might have
been expected from their high character, yet a prolonged continuance of 300
Africans in the immediate vicinity of that city could not have failed to
become a source of inconvenience and anxiety to its inhabitants. Where to
send them was the question. There was no portion of the coast of Africa to
which they could be removed with any regard to humanity except to Liberia.
Under these circumstances an agreement was entered into with the
Colonization Society on the 7th of September last, a copy of which is
herewith transmitted, under which the society engaged, for the
consideration of $45,000, to receive these Africans in Liberia from the
agent of the United States and furnish them during the period of one year
thereafter with comfortable shelter, clothing, provisions, and medical
attendance, causing the children to receive schooling, and all, whether
children or adults, to be instructed in the arts of civilized life suitable
to their condition. This aggregate of $45,000 was based upon an allowance
of $150 for each individual; and as there has been considerable mortality
among them and may be more before they reach Africa, the society have
agreed, in an equitable spirit, to make such a deduction from the amount as
under the circumstances may appear just and reasonable. This can not be
fixed until we shall ascertain the actual number which may become a charge
to the society. It was also distinctly agreed that under no circumstances
shall this Government be called upon for any additional expenses. The
agents of the society manifested a laudable desire to conform to the wishes
of the Government throughout the transaction. They assured me that after a
careful calculation they would be required to expend the sum of $150 on
each individual in complying with the agreement, and they would have
nothing left to remunerate them for their care, trouble, and
responsibility. At all events, I could make no better arrangement, and
there was no other alternative. During the period when the Government
itself, through its own agents, undertook the task of providing for
captured negroes in Africa the cost per head was very much greater.
There having been no outstanding appropriation applicable to this purpose,
I could not advance any money on the agreement. I therefore recommend that
an appropriation may be made of the amount necessary to carry it into
effect.
Other captures of a similar character may, and probably will, be made by
our naval forces, and I earnestly recommend that Congress may amend the
second section of the act of March 3, 1819, so as to free its construction
from the ambiguity which has so long existed and render the duty of the
President plain in executing its provisions.
State of the Union Address
December 19, 1859
Our deep and heartfelt gratitude is due to that Almighty Power which has
bestowed upon us such varied and numerous blessings throughout the past
year. The general health of the country has been excellent, our harvests
have been unusually plentiful, and prosperity smiles throughout the land.
Indeed, notwithstanding our demerits, we have much reason to believe from
the past events in our history that we have enjoyed the special protection
of Divine Providence ever since our origin as a nation. We have been
exposed to many threatening and alarming difficulties in our progress, but
on each successive occasion the impending cloud has been dissipated at the
moment it appeared ready to burst upon our head, and the danger to our
institutions has passed away. May we ever be under the divine guidance and
protection. Whilst it is the duty of the President "from time to time to
give to Congress information of the state of the Union," I shall not refer
in detail to the recent sad and bloody occurrences at Harpers Ferry. Still,
it is proper to observe that these events, however bad and cruel in
themselves, derive their chief importance from the apprehension that they
are but symptoms of an incurable disease in the public mind, which may
break out in still more dangerous outrages and terminate at last in an open
war by the North to abolish slavery in the South. Whilst for myself I
entertain no such apprehension, they ought to afford a solemn warning to us
all to beware of the approach of danger. Our Union is a stake of such
inestimable value as to demand our constant and watchful vigilance for its
preservation. In this view, let me implore my countrymen, North and South,
to cultivate the ancient feelings of mutual forbearance and good will
toward each other and strive to allay the demon spirit of sectional hatred
and strife now alive in the land. This advice proceeds from the heart of an
old public functionary whose service commenced in the last generation,
among the wise and conservative statesmen of that day, now nearly all
passed away, and whose first and dearest earthly wish is to leave his
country tranquil, prosperous, united, and powerful.
We ought to reflect that in this age, and especially in this country, there
is an incessant flux and reflux of public opinion. Questions which in their
day assumed a most threatening aspect have now nearly gone from the memory
of men. They are "volcanoes burnt out, and on the lava and ashes and
squalid scoria of old eruptions grow the peaceful olive, the cheering vine,
and the sustaining corn." Such, in my opinion, will prove to be the fate of
the present sectional excitement should those who wisely seek to apply the
remedy continue always to confine their efforts within the pale of the
Constitution. If this course be pursued, the existing agitation on the
subject of domestic slavery, like everything human, will have its day and
give place to other and less threatening controversies. Public opinion in
this country is all-powerful, and when it reaches a dangerous excess upon
any question the good sense of the people will furnish the corrective and
bring it back within safe limits. Still, to hasten this auspicious result
at the present crisis we ought to remember that every rational creature
must be presumed to intend the natural consequences of his own teachings.
Those who announce abstract doctrines subversive of the Constitution and
the Union must not be surprised should their heated partisans advance one
step further and attempt by violence to carry these doctrines into
practical effect. In this view of the subject, it ought never to be
forgotten that however great may have been the political advantages
resulting from the Union to every portion of our common country, these
would all prove to be as nothing should the time ever arrive when they can
not be enjoyed without serious danger to the personal safety of the people
of fifteen members of the Confederacy. If the peace of the domestic
fireside throughout these States should ever be invaded, if the mothers of
families within this extensive region should not be able to retire to rest
at night without suffering dreadful apprehensions of what may be their own
fate and that of their children before the morning, it would be vain to
recount to such a people the political benefits which result to them from
the Union. Self-preservation is the first instinct of nature, and therefore
any state of society in which the sword is all the time suspended over the
heads of the people must at last become intolerable. But I indulge in no
such gloomy forebodings. On the contrary, I firmly believe that the events
at Harpers Ferry, by causing the people to pause and reflect upon the
possible peril to their cherished institutions, will be the means under
Providence of allaying the existing excitement and preventing further
outbreaks of a similar character. They will resolve that the Constitution
and the Union shall not be endangered by rash counsels, knowing that should
"the silver cord be loosed or the golden bowl be broken at the fountain"
human power could never reunite the scattered and hostile fragments.
I cordially congratulate you upon the final settlement by the Supreme Court
of the United States of the question of slavery in the Territories, which
had presented an aspect so truly formidable at the commencement of my
Administration. The right has been established of every citizen to take his
property of any kind, including slaves, into the common Territories
belonging equally to all the States of the Confederacy, and to have it
protected there under the Federal Constitution. Neither Congress nor a
Territorial legislature nor any human power has any authority to annul or
impair this vested right. The supreme judicial tribunal of the country,
which is a coordinate branch of the Government, has sanctioned and affirmed
these principles of constitutional law, so manifestly just in themselves
and so well calculated to promote peace and harmony among the States. It is
a striking proof of the sense of justice which is inherent in our people
that the property in slaves has never been disturbed, to my knowledge, in
any of the Territories. Even throughout the late troubles in Kansas there
has not been any attempt, as I am credibly informed, to interfere in a
single instance with the right of the master. Had any such attempt been
made, the judiciary would doubtless have afforded an adequate remedy.
Should they fail to do this hereafter, it will then be time enough to
strengthen their hands by further legislation. Had it been decided that
either Congress or the Territorial legislature possess the power to annul
or impair the right to property in slaves, the evil would be intolerable.
In the latter event there would be a struggle for a majority of the members
of the legislature at each successive election, and the sacred rights of
property held under the Federal Constitution would depend for the time
being on the result. The agitation would thus be rendered incessant whilst
the Territorial condition remained, and its baneful influence would keep
alive a dangerous excitement among the people of the several States.
Thus has the status of a Territory during the intermediate period from its
first settlement until it shall become a State been irrevocably fixed by
the final decision of the Supreme Court. Fortunate has this been for the
prosperity of the Territories, as well as the tranquillity of the States.
Now emigrants from the North and the South, the East and the West, will
meet in the Territories on a common platform, having brought with them that
species of property best adapted, in their own opinion, to promote their
welfare. From natural causes the slavery question will in each case soon
virtually settle itself, and before the Territory is prepared for admission
as a State into the Union this decision, one way or the other, will have
been a foregone conclusion. Meanwhile the settlement of the new Territory
will proceed without serious interruption, and its progress and prosperity
will not be endangered or retarded by violent political struggles.
When in the progress of events the inhabitants of any Territory shall have
reached the number required to form a State, they will then proceed in a
regular manner and in the exercise of the rights of popular sovereignty to
form a constitution preparatory to admission into the Union. After this has
been done, to employ the language of the Kansas and Nebraska act, they
"shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their
constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission." This sound
principle has happily been recognized in some form or other by an almost
unanimous vote of both Houses of the last Congress.
All lawful means at my command have been employed, and shall continue to be
employed, to execute the laws against the African slave trade. After a most
careful and rigorous examination of our coasts and a thorough investigation
of the subject, we have not been able to discover that any slaves have been
imported into the United States except the cargo by the Wanderer, numbering
between three and four hundred. Those engaged in this unlawful enterprise
have been rigorously prosecuted, but not with as much success as their
crimes have deserved. A number of them are still under prosecution.
Our history proves that the fathers of the Republic, in advance of all
other nations, condemned the African slave trade. It was, notwithstanding,
deemed expedient by the framers of the Constitution to deprive Congress of
the power to prohibit "the migration or importation of such persons as any
of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" "prior to the year
1808." It will be seen that this restriction on the power of Congress was
confined to such States only as might think proper to admit the importation
of slaves. It did not extend to other States or to the trade carried on
abroad. Accordingly, we find that so early as the 22d March, 1794, Congress
passed an act imposing severe penalties and punishments upon citizens and
residents of the United States who should engage in this trade between
foreign nations. The provisions of this act were extended and enforced by
the act of 10th May, 1800.
Again, the States themselves had a clear right to waive the constitutional
privilege intended for their benefit, and to prohibit by their own laws
this trade at any time they thought proper previous to 1808. Several of
them exercised this right before that period, and among them some
containing the greatest number of slaves. This gave to Congress the
immediate power to act in regard to all such States, because they
themselves had removed the constitutional barrier. Congress accordingly
passed an act on 28th February, 1803, "to prevent the importation of
certain persons into certain States where by the laws thereof their
admission is prohibited." In this manner the importation of African slaves
into the United States was to a great extent prohibited some years in
advance of 1808.
As the year 1808 approached Congress determined not to suffer this trade to
exist even for a single day after they had the power to abolish it. On the
2d of March, 1807, they passed an act, to take effect "from and after the
1st day of January, 1808," prohibiting the importation of African slaves
into the United States. This was followed by subsequent acts of a similar
character, to which I need not specially refer. Such were the principles
and such the practice of our ancestors more than fifty years ago in regard
to the African slave trade. It did not occur to the revered patriots who
had been delegates to the Convention, and afterwards became members of
Congress, that in passing these laws they had violated the Constitution
which they had framed with so much care and deliberation. They supposed
that to prohibit Congress in express terms from exercising a specified
power before an appointed day necessarily involved the right to exercise
this power after that day had arrived.
If this were not the case, the framers of the Constitution had expended
much labor in vain. Had they imagined that Congress would possess no power
to prohibit the trade either before or after 1808, they would not have
taken so much care to protect the States against the exercise of this power
before that period. Nay, more, they would not have attached such vast
importance to this provision as to have excluded it from the possibility of
future repeal or amendment, to which other portions of the Constitution
were exposed. It would, then, have been wholly unnecessary to ingraft on
the fifth article of the Constitution, prescribing the mode of its own
future amendment, the proviso "that no amendment which may be made prior to
the year 1808 shall in any manner affect" the provision in the Constitution
securing to the States the right to admit the importation of African slaves
previous to that period. According to the adverse construction, the clause
itself, on which so much care and discussion had been employed by the
members of the Convention, was an absolute nullity from the beginning, and
all that has since been done under it a mere usurpation.
It was well and wise to confer this power on Congress, because had it been
left to the States its efficient exercise would have been impossible. In
that event any one State could have effectually continued the trade, not
only for itself, but for all the other slave States, though never so much
against their will. And why? Because African slaves, when once brought
within the limits of any one State in accordance with its laws, can not
practically be excluded from any State where slavery exists. And even if
all the States had separately passed laws prohibiting the importation of
slaves, these laws would have failed of effect for want of a naval force to
capture the slavers and to guard the coast. Such a force no State can
employ in time of peace without the consent of Congress.
These acts of Congress, it is believed, have, with very rare and
insignificant exceptions, accomplished their purpose. For a period of more
than half a century there has been no perceptible addition to the number of
our domestic slaves. During this period their advancement in civilization
has far surpassed that of any other portion of the African race. The light
and the blessings of Christianity have been extended to them, and both
their moral and physical condition has been greatly improved.
Reopen the trade and it would be difficult to determine whether the effect
would be more deleterious on the interests of the master or on those of the
native-born slave. Of the evils to the master, the one most to be dreaded
would be the introduction of wild, heathen, and ignorant barbarians among
the sober, orderly, and quiet slaves whose ancestors have been on the soil
for several generations. This might tend to barbarize, demoralize, and
exasperate the whole mass and produce most deplorable consequences.
The effect upon the existing slave would, if possible, be still more
deplorable. At present he is treated with kindness and humanity. He is well
fed, well clothed, and not overworked. His condition is incomparably better
than that of the coolies which modern nations of high civilization have
employed as a substitute for African slaves. Both the philanthropy and the
self-interest of the master have combined to produce this humane result.
But let this trade be reopened and what will be the effect? The same to a
considerable extent as on a neighboring island, the only spot now on earth
where the African slave trade is openly tolerated, and this in defiance of
solemn treaties with a power abundantly able at any moment to enforce their
execution. There the master, intent upon present gain, extorts from the
slave as much labor as his physical powers are capable of enduring, knowing
that when death comes to his relief his place can be supplied at a price
reduced to the lowest point by the competition of rival African slave
traders. Should this ever be the case in our country, which I do not deem
possible, the present useful character of the domestic institution, wherein
those too old and too young to work are provided for with care and humanity
and those capable of labor are not overtasked, would undergo an unfortunate
change. The feeling of reciprocal dependence and attachment which now
exists between master and slave would be converted into mutual distrust and
hostility.
But we are obliged as a Christian and moral nation to consider what would
be the effect upon unhappy Africa itself if we should reopen the slave
trade. This would give the trade an impulse and extension which it has
never had, even in its palmiest days. The numerous victims required to
supply it would convert the whole slave coast into a perfect pandemonium,
for which this country would be held responsible in the eyes both of God
and man. Its petty tribes would then be constantly engaged in predatory
wars against each other for the purpose of seizing slaves to supply the
American market. All hopes of African civilization would thus be ended.
On the other hand, when a market for African slaves shall no longer be
furnished in Cuba, and thus all the world be closed against this trade, we
may then indulge a reasonable hope for the gradual improvement of Africa.
The chief motive of war among the tribes will cease whenever there is no
longer any demand for slaves. The resources of that fertile but miserable
country might then be developed by the hand of industry and afford subjects
for legitimate foreign and domestic commerce. In this manner Christianity
and civilization may gradually penetrate the existing gloom.
State of the Union Address
December 3, 1860
Throughout the year since our last meeting the country has been eminently
prosperous in all its material interests. The general health has been
excellent, our harvests have been abundant, and plenty smiles throughout
the laud. Our commerce and manufactures have been prosecuted with energy
and industry, and have yielded fair and ample returns. In short, no nation
in the tide of time has ever presented a spectacle of greater material
prosperity than we have done until within a very recent period.
Why is it, then, that discontent now so extensively prevails, and the Union
of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, is threatened
with destruction?
The long-continued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with
the question of slavery in the Southern States has at length produced its
natural effects. The different sections of the Union are now arrayed
against each other, and the time has arrived, so much dreaded by the Father
of his Country, when hostile geographical parties have been formed.
I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the now
impending danger. This does not proceed solely from the claim on the part
of Congress or the Territorial legislatures to exclude slavery from the
Territories, nor from the efforts of different States to defeat the
execution of the fugitive-slave law. All or any of these evils might have
been endured by the South without danger to the Union (as others have been)
in the hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy. The immediate
peril arises not so much from these causes as from the fact that the
incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question throughout the
North for the last quarter of a century has at length produced its malign
influence on the slaves and inspired them with vague notions of freedom.
Hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. This
feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehensions of servile
insurrections. Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in dread
of what may befall herself and children before the morning. Should this
apprehension of domestic danger, whether real or imaginary, extend and
intensify itself until it shall pervade the masses of the Southern people,
then disunion will become inevitable. Self-preservation is the first law of
nature, and has been implanted in the heart of man by his Creator for the
wisest purpose; and no political union, however fraught with blessings and
benefits in all other respects, can long continue if the necessary
consequence be to render the homes and the firesides of nearly half the
parties to it habitually and hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later the bonds
of such a union must be severed. It is my conviction that this fatal period
has not yet arrived, and my prayer to God is that He would preserve the
Constitution and the Union throughout all generations.
But let us take warning in time and remove the cause of danger. It can not
be denied that for five and twenty years the agitation at the North against
slavery has been incessant. In 1835 pictorial handbills and inflammatory
appeals were circulated extensively throughout the South of a character to
excite the passions of the slaves, and, in the language of General Jackson,
"to stimulate them to insurrection and produce all the horrors of a servile
war." This agitation has ever since been continued by the public press, by
the proceedings of State and county conventions and by abolition sermons
and lectures. The time of Congress has been occupied in violent speeches on
this never-ending subject, and appeals, in pamphlet and other forms,
indorsed by distinguished names, have been sent forth from this central
point and spread broadcast over the Union.
How easy would it be for the American people to settle the slavery question
forever and to restore peace and harmony to this distracted country! They,
and they alone, can do it. All that is necessary to accomplish the object,
and all for which the slave States have ever contended, is to be let alone
and permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way. As
sovereign States, they, and they alone, are responsible before God and the
world for the slavery existing among them. For this the people of the North
are not more responsible and have no more fight to interfere than with
similar institutions in Russia or in Brazil.
Upon their good sense and patriotic forbearance I confess I still greatly
rely. Without their aid it is beyond the power of any President, no matter
what may be his own political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony
among the States. Wisely limited and restrained as is his power under our
Constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish but little for good or for
evil on such a momentous question.
And this brings me to observe that the election of any one of our
fellow-citizens to the office of President does not of itself afford just
cause for dissolving the Union. This is more especially true if his
election has been effected by a mere plurality, and not a majority of the
people, and has resulted from transient and temporary causes, which may
probably never again occur. In order to justify a resort to revolutionary
resistance, the Federal Government must be guilty of "a deliberate,
palpable, and dangerous exercise" of powers not granted by the
Constitution.
The late Presidential election, however, has been held in strict conformity
with its express provisions. How, then, can the result justify a revolution
to destroy this very Constitution? Reason, justice, a regard for the
Constitution, all require that we shall wait for some overt and dangerous
act on the part of the President elect before resorting to such a remedy.
It is said, however, that the antecedents of the President-elect have been
sufficient to justify the fears of the South that he will attempt to invade
their constitutional rights. But are such apprehensions of contingent
danger in the future sufficient to justify the immediate destruction of the
noblest system of government ever devised by mortals? From the very nature
of his office and its high responsibilities he must necessarily be
conservative. The stern duty of administering the vast and complicated
concerns of this Government affords in itself a guaranty that he will not
attempt any violation of a clear constitutional right.
After all, he is no more than the chief executive officer of the
Government. His province is not to make but to execute the laws. And it is
a remarkable fact in our history that, notwithstanding the repeated efforts
of the antislavery party, no single act has ever passed Congress, unless we
may possibly except the Missouri compromise, impairing in the slightest
degree the rights of the South to their property in slaves; and it may also
be observed, judging from present indications, that no probability exists
of the passage of such an act by a majority of both Houses, either in the
present or the next Congress. Surely under these circumstances we ought to
be restrained from present action by the precept of Him who spake as man
never spoke, that "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." The day of
evil may never come unless we shall rashly bring it upon ourselves.
It is alleged as one cause for immediate secession that the Southern States
are denied equal rights with the other States in the common Territories.
But by what authority are these denied? Not by Congress, which has never
passed, and I believe never will pass, any act to exclude slavery from
these Territories; and certainly not by the Supreme Court, which has
solemnly decided that slaves are property, and, like all other property,
their owners have a right to take them into the common Territories and hold
them there under the protection of the Constitution.
So far then, as Congress is concerned, the objection is not to anything
they have already done, but to what they may do hereafter. It will surely
be admitted that this apprehension of future danger is no good reason for
an immediate dissolution of the Union. It is true that the Territorial
legislature of Kansas, on the 23d February, 1860, passed in great haste an
act over the veto of the governor declaring that slavery "is and shall be
forever prohibited in this Territory." Such an act, however, plainly
violating the rights of property secured by the Constitution, will surely
be declared void by the judiciary whenever it shall be presented in a legal
form.
Only three days after my inauguration the Supreme Court of the United
States solemnly adjudged that this power did not exist in a Territorial
legislature. Yet such has been the factious temper of the times that the
correctness of this decision has been extensively impugned before the
people, and the question has given rise to angry political conflicts
throughout the country. Those who have appealed from this judgment of our
highest constitutional tribunal to popular assemblies would, if they could,
invest a Territorial legislature with power to annul the sacred rights of
property. This power Congress is expressly forbidden by the Federal
Constitution to exercise. Every State legislature in the Union is forbidden
by its own constitution to exercise it. It can not be exercised in any
State except by the people in their highest sovereign capacity, when
framing or amending their State constitution. In like manner it can only be
exercised by the people of a Territory represented in a convention of
delegates for the purpose of framing a constitution preparatory to
admission as a State into the Union. Then, and not until then, are they
invested with power to decide the question whether slavery shall or shall
not exist within their limits. This is an act of sovereign authority, and
not of subordinate Territorial legislation. Were it otherwise, then indeed
would the equality of the States in the Territories be destroyed, and the
rights of property in slaves would depend not upon the guaranties of the
Constitution, but upon the shifting majorities of an irresponsible
Territorial legislature. Such a doctrine, from its intrinsic unsoundness,
can not long influence any considerable portion of our people, much less
can it afford a good reason for a dissolution of the Union.
The most palpable violations of constitutional duty which have yet been
committed consist in the acts of different State legislatures to defeat the
execution of the fugitive-slave law. It ought to be remembered, however,
that for these acts neither Congress nor any President can justly be held
responsible. Having been passed in violation of the Federal Constitution,
they are therefore null and void. All the courts, both State and national,
before whom the question has arisen have from the beginning declared the
fugitive-slave law to be constitutional. The single exception is that of a
State court in Wisconsin, and this has not only been reversed by the proper
appellate tribunal, but has met with such universal reprobation that there
can be no danger from it as a precedent. The validity of this law has been
established over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States
with perfect unanimity. It is rounded upon an express provision of the
Constitution, requiring that fugitive slaves who escape from service in one
State to another shall be "delivered up" to their masters. Without this
provision it is a well-known historical fact that the Constitution itself
could never have been adopted by the Convention. In one form or other,
under the acts of 1793 and 1850, both being substantially the same, the
fugitive-slave law has been the law of the land from the days of Washington
until the present moment. Here, then, a clear case is presented in which it
will be the duty of the next President, as it has been my own, to act with
vigor in executing this supreme law against the conflicting enactments of
State legislatures. Should he fail in the performance of this high duty, he
will then have manifested a disregard of the Constitution and laws, to the
great injury of the people of nearly one-half of the States of the Union.
But are we to presume in advance that he will thus violate his duty? This
would be at war with every principle of justice and of Christian charity.
Let us wait for the overt act. The fugitive-slave law has been carried into
execution in every contested case since the commencement of the present
Administration, though Often, it is to be regretted, with great loss and
inconvenience to the master and with considerable expense to the
Government. Let us trust that the State legislatures will repeal their
unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments. Unless this shall be done
without unnecessary delay, it is impossible for any human power to save the
Union.
The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have right
to demand this act of justice from the States of the North. Should it be
refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will
have been willfully violated by one portion of them in a provision
essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder. In that
event the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and
constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary
resistance to the Government of the Union.
...
This is the very course which I earnestly recommend in order to obtain an
"explanatory amendment" of the Constitution on the subject of slavery. This
might originate with Congress or the State legislatures, as may be deemed
most advisable to attain the object. The explanatory amendment might be
confined to the final settlement of the true construction of the
Constitution on three special points:
1. An express recognition of the right of property in slaves in the States
where it now exists or may hereafter exist.
2. The duty of protecting this right in all the common Territories
throughout their Territorial existence, and until they shall be admitted as
States into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitutions may
prescribe.
3. A like recognition of the right of the master to have his slave who has
escaped from one State to another restored and "delivered up" to him, and
of the validity of the fugitive-slave law enacted for this purpose,
together with a declaration that all State laws impairing or defeating this
right are violations of the Constitution, and are consequently null and
void. It may be objected that this construction of the Constitution has
already been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, and what
more ought to be required? The answer is that a very large proportion of
the people of the United States still contest the correctness of this
decision, and never will cease from agitation and admit its binding force
until clearly established by the people of the several States in their
sovereign character. Such an explanatory amendment would, it is believed,
forever terminate the existing dissensions, and restore peace and harmony
among the States.
It ought not to be doubted that such an appeal to the arbitrament
established by the Constitution itself would be received with favor by all
the States of the Confederacy. In any event, it ought to be tried in a
spirit of conciliation before any of these States shall separate themselves
from the Union.
When I entered upon the duties of the Presidential office, the aspect
neither of our foreign nor domestic affairs was at all satisfactory. We
were involved in dangerous complications with several nations, and two of
our Territories were in a state of revolution against the Government. A
restoration of the African slave trade had numerous and powerful advocates.
Unlawful military expeditions were countenanced by many of our citizens,
and were suffered, in defiance of the efforts of the Government, to escape
from our shores for the purpose of making war upon the offending people of
neighboring republics with whom we were at peace. In addition to these and
other difficulties, we experienced a revulsion in monetary affairs soon
after my advent to power of unexampled severity and of ruinous consequences
to all the great interests of the country. When we take a retrospect of
what was then our condition and contrast this with its material prosperity
at the time of the late Presidential election, we have abundant reason to
return our grateful thanks to that merciful Providence which has never
forsaken us as a nation in all our past trials.
...
At the period of my inauguration I was confronted in Kansas by a
revolutionary government existing under what is called the "Topeka
constitution." Its avowed object was to subdue the Territorial government
by force and to inaugurate what was called the "Topeka government" in its
stead. To accomplish this object an extensive military organization was
formed, and its command intrusted to the most violent revolutionary
leaders. Under these circumstances it became my imperative duty to exert
the whole constitutional power of the Executive to prevent the flames of
civil war from again raging in Kansas, which in the excited state of the
public mind, both North and South, might have extended into the neighboring
States. The hostile parties in Kansas had been inflamed against each other
by emissaries both from the North and the South to a degree of malignity
without parallel in our history. To prevent actual collision and to assist
the civil magistrates in enforcing the laws, a strong detachment of the
Army was stationed in the Territory, ready to aid the marshal and his
deputies when lawfully called upon as a posse comitatus in the execution of
civil and criminal process. Still, the troubles in Kansas could not have
been permanently settled without an election by the people.
The ballot box is the surest arbiter of disputes among freemen. Under this
conviction every proper effort was employed to induce the hostile parties
to vote at the election of delegates to frame a State constitution, and
afterwards at the election to decide whether Kansas should be a slave or
free State.
The insurgent party refused to vote at either, lest this might be
considered a recognition on their part of the Territorial government
established by Congress. A better spirit, however, seemed soon after to
prevail, and the two parties met face to face at the third election, held
on the first Monday of January, 1858, for members of the legislature and
State officers under the Lecompton constitution. The result was the triumph
of the antislavery party at the polls. This decision of the ballot box
proved clearly that this party were in the majority, and removed the danger
of civil war. From that time we have heard little or nothing of the Topeka
government, and all serious danger of revolutionary troubles in Kansas was
then at an end.
The Lecompton constitution, which had been thus recognized at this State
election by the votes of both political parties in Kansas, was transmitted
to me with the request that I should present it to Congress. This I could
not have refused to do without violating my clearest and strongest
convictions of duty. The constitution and all the proceedings which
preceded and followed its formation were fair and regular on their face. I
then believed, and experience has proved, that the interests of the people
of Kansas would have been best consulted by its admission as a State into
the Union, especially as the majority within a brief period could have
amended the constitution according to their will and pleasure. If fraud
existed in all or any of these proceedings, it was not for the President
but for Congress to investigate and determine the question of fraud and
what ought to be its consequences. If at the first two elections the
majority refused to vote, it can not be pretended that this refusal to
exercise the elective franchise could invalidate an election fairly held
under lawful authority, even if they had not subsequently voted at the
third election. It is true that the whole constitution had not been
submitted to the people, as I always desired; but the precedents are
numerous of the admission of States into the Union without such submission.
It would not comport with my present purpose to review the proceedings of
Congress upon the Lecompton constitution. It is sufficient to observe that
their final action has removed the last vestige of serious revolutionary
troubles. The desperate hand recently assembled under a notorious outlaw in
the southern portion of the Territory to resist the execution of the laws
and to plunder peaceful citizens will, I doubt not be speedily subdued and
brought to justice.
Had I treated the Lecompton constitution as a nullity and refused to
transmit it to Congress, it is not difficult to imagine, whilst recalling
the position of the country at that moment, what would have been the
disastrous consequences, both in and out of the Territory, from such a
dereliction of duty on the part of the Executive.
|
|
| |
